Once again, the flag of unfettered open access to operations of publicly funded entities is being waved by the media. I would like to add my voice to those who believe that not everything belongs in the public arena.

During my 30 years in the world of Wall Street, I was a vocal proponent of full financial disclosure, so that investors could rationally assess management decisions. In the same spirit, I wholeheartedly support the concept that citizens should have full information about decisions made regarding the management of public resources.

Transparency with re-spect to decisions that have been made, however, should not be confused with unrestricted access to the decision-making process or to routine operations associated with running a business. In my view, the Freedom of Information Act, as it has played out in Iowa, has a detrimental impact on the quality of decision making in the public sector.

There are a variety of reasons.

• Decision makers, whether elected or appointed, are accountable for their actions. They are under considerable pressure to be informed as to the pros and cons of any issue.

Informed decisions certainly require public input. But they also require the opportunity to brainstorm – to ask dumb questions and make critical observations about the environment in which a decision is being made. The sad fact is that the media too often report the dumb question that makes a good headline rather than the soundness of the overall discussion.

• The media are rarely held accountable for the dissemination of inaccurate or biased information, particularly if they are quoting someone who has made an assertion that is inaccurate or a claim that has no basis in fact.

• A related problem is the FOIA demand for access to work papers that go beyond the walls of the organization (e.g., collaborative documents or drafts for comment). In this case, the news organization making the FOIA request is doing far more than asking for information; it is demanding to be included in the day-to-day process of managing a business.

• The FOIA is particularly problematic where personnel matters are concerned. There is a silly-season quality to the debate in which the press demands to know “why” a personnel meeting is closed, when the purpose of a closed meeting is to protect the privacy, dignity and effectiveness of individuals under discussion. I observed this firsthand at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium, when the press demanded access to personnel meetings in which individual personnel matters were likely to be discussed. I see it now in the Iowa Board of Regents’ search for a new University of Iowa president, where the press is demanding access to candidates who are unlikely to be appointed to the post, but whose effectiveness in their current roles could be compromised.

Open access is a critical element of public process, but current FOIA legislation has become increasingly intrusive and counterproductive.

Mary Gottschalk is the owner of MCG Strategic Services, which provides strategic financial services to non-profit organizations.